Talk:Tim Pool

Pool's extremist comments on right-wing mass shootings

Springee has deleted the edits re-introducing Tim Pool's comments on the Colorado LGBT club mass shooting calling the victims groomers, which were widely reported in reliable sources and by noteworthy commentators, and they have single-handedly decided that the BBC's article about the disinformation being spread by Tim Pool on the Texas shooting doesn't belong. Both these events, however, constitute one of the few times Pool's commentary broke the bubble of technology news media and made it to the highest-ranking news outlets. Unflattering or not, they belong on this entry as much as everything else about him. Can the wider editor community weigh in? Peleio Aquiles (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Please use the previous discussion rather than starting a new one. Springee (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

We have new edits and events, about the Texas shooting so a new discussion is appropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the edits I don't think Springee is as much objecting to the coverage per-say they just don't like the language used/meets the very strict requirements of BLP, @Springee: can you suggest summaries of the coverage which you feel are appropriate? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I'm at a computer again (vs on a phone). Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk · contribs) was part of the prior discussion when this same material was added. Springee (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

That user hasn't edited this entry in months. I'm fairly certain that ot's against Wikipedia's rules to canvass specific editors to discuss edit controversies in a Talk Page just because they're likely to agree with you. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

You, Springee, and I were the only editors to participate in the last discussion on this topic. Per WP:APPNOTE, it is perfectly acceptable to notify Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Springee did not canvass anyone to this discussion. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. Since this is a continuation of the previous discussion notifying involved parties is fine. Springee (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

If that's the case, it's certainly odd that they only react to such coverage by blanketing them. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The article you cite says very little about Pool. The content related to Pool himself is at the very bottom and it isn't clear what specifically Pool was saying or referencing. I removed three claims/two sections of text which referenced that single BBC article. One was the "...as been described by the BBC". My issue here is these sort of offhand descriptions are rarely a good source for an encyclopedic claim in large part because they aren't supported by the text that follows. They are meant to set the stage for an otherwise unfamiliar reader. They don't support their claim which is something we would want when dealing with a BLP. The other part was the new, two sentence paragraph that says Pool's claims were baseless (the BBC doesn't say that). It also isn't clear what Pool was saying was a "psyop". Was it the information about the shooter in general or the linkage to Pool etc? Vague statements below the fold aren't good sources for contentious claims about a BLP subject. It's also not OK to take those vague claims and try to strengthen them in a way that isn't clearly supported by the original source. As a final, independent point, listing a bunch of times when some writer decided they didn't like what someone said on social media really isn't a good way to construct a BLP. Springee (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Re: "His podcast has been described by the BBC as covering "right-wing talking points and conspiracy theories"."

The statement is presented as an opinion expressed by the BBC. (In fact, it should say BBC writers since the source is a signed article. If it is an opinion, then weight must be established. This is usually done by showing that the comments by the BBC writers have been widely cited.

However, this appears not to be a statement of opinion, but one of fact *whether it is true or not.) In that case, intext attribution should not be used. For example one would not say Obama was born in the U.S., according to BBC reporters, we would just say he was born in the U.S. and provide inline citations. Intext citation would add doubt to something that is a fact.

The comment in the BBC article is not particularly helpful. Yes, he covers "right-wing talking points and conspiracy theories," but so does the SPLC and to a lesser extent, most news media when they become newsworthy. I learned about birtherism for example on CNN, because they "covered it."

I do not think it is useful to throw in one sentence zingers drawn from passing references in news media. It's better to get comprehensive sources about the topic and summarize them. If they don't exist, leave them out or delete the article.

An article based on the original research of editors is worse than not having an article at all.

Furthermore, the source itself is not rs for facts because it is analysis. TFD (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand, Pool isn't "covering" them as a journalist he holds or is sympathetic to these views and is promoting them. The NYT describes his podcast as "an extreme right-wing podcast" and says that it has "been criticized as a vector for conspiracy theories"[1] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems like the sort of thing that the far right would say.Tim Pool is far right. 84.69.209.118 (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from vandalizing this page with personal opinion bias that VERY clearly violates the Wikipedia neutrality policy. To claim that Tim Pool is a far right activist as a statement of fact is blatantly in violation. Regardless of your personal feeling about Tim Pool, stating his political views based on media outlet opinion pieces go against the very heart of wikipedia. DanMan3395 (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@DanMan3395 no, you are in the wrong here. Those are not opinion pieces. We go by what reliable sources say. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

you are incorrect. The first source: "https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/conspiracy-theorists-far-right-agitators-head-white-house-social-media-n1028576" cites a twitter post by a permanently banned user known for spreading false information. It is NOT a reliable source.

The second source: "https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65539698" makes no claim about Tim pool's political affiliation at all. It is an article that shows that a criminal followed him on social media.

BOTH of these articles rely on social media which is a violation of Wikipedia policy. The content in dispute is a CLEAR violation of the Wikipedia policy on neutrality in subject matter. Lastly, the content in question is NOT a statement of fact, but rather a ridiculously biased opinion of SOME editors.

Please refrain from further vandalizing this page or this will be escalated to senior administration for review. DanMan3395 (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

DanMan3395, the BBC source clearlys says "Mr Pool's podcasts, which cover right-wing talking points and conspiracy theories." There is nothing violating neutrality just because you don't agree with high quality, reputable sources. – notwally (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

That quote is not cited, nor is the focus of the article even about the subject matter. This most certainly DOES violate the Wikipedia neutrality policy as you are merely expressing your personal bias with substantially low quality sources. The rules on this are especially strict when it comes to biographical pages about people. Please stop putting opinion on this page. Move that note to the section about his podcast's content and cite the view as the opinion of the BBC writer that published your source. DanMan3395 (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

That article is already cited, and there are numerous other sources to support the use of "right wing", which has been discussed repeatedly on this talk page. The BBC is about as high quality a news source as one can get and is not "substantially low quality" as you claim. Your POV is not given more weight than major, respected newspapers. You are wrong about the policies and the sources, and you need to stop your editing warring. In the past week, you have been reverted by at least four other editors including me (EvergreenFir, Newimpartial, Ponyo) for your WP:Tendentious editing. – notwally (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Why is his Mixed Race missing?

No entry about his asian roots here! Fix it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DC:CF39:CB00:78AA:59B9:B5F3:ED42 (talk) 06:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Find a reliable source and do it yourself. NM 03:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

He has made statements as such on Twitter alluding to his supposed Korean & Japanese ancestry. But is it all that noteworthy? He only brings up this supposed(probably no more than 1/4) E. Asian ancestry when making a point about something someone else said on twitter - hardly noteworthy. He isn't Asian American until he actually identifies as such. And even then...--SinoDevonian (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Rather than debate noteworthiness ourselves, I think we should just include what reliable sources say. And none that I can see on a single search seem to mention that he's part Asian, so we shouldn't include it until someone can find that one that does. Btw, I am seeing an X post from him saying that he identifies as Asian American; he made this post on the same day you posted so he's possibly monitoring this talk page lol. Stop being edgy tim 104.232.119.107 (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Accusation of meddling with the 2024 presidential election

Hi. I'm basically asking to help me improve formulating this recent newspiece about Pool's involvement with Russia's Kremlin propaganda and election interference (via RT and TENET Co.) … so that it's up to WP standard and doesn't get deleted. More info that I could find on this: [2] [3] Thanks, Hidalgo944 (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Yahoo typically just republished content from other outlets which may or may not be reliable. For convenience, here are some sources formatted as references:

• Woodward, Alex (4 September 2024). "US accuses Russian state media of enlisting influencers to meddle in election". The Independent. Retrieved 5 September 2024.
• Bloomenthal, Paul (4 September 2024). "DOJ Says 2 Russians Funded Big-Name Online Conservative Media Personalities". HuffPost. Retrieved 5 September 2024.
• Lyngaas, Sean; Cohen, Zachary; O'Sullivan, Donie; Perez, Evan (4 September 2024). "DOJ alleges Russia funded US media company linked to right-wing social media stars | CNN Politics". CNN. Retrieved 5 September 2024.
• Reilly, Ryan J.; Rubin, Lisa; Zadrozny, Brandy; Ingram, David; Dilanian, Ken; Collier, Kevin (4 September 2024). "Russian money was funneled to right-wing creators through a pro-Trump media outlet: prosecutors". NBC News. Retrieved 5 September 2024.
• Becket, Stefan; Quinn, Melissa (4 September 2024). "U.S. says Russia funded media company that paid right-wing influencers millions for videos - CBS News". www.cbsnews.com. Retrieved 5 September 2024.

HuffPo is less credible as a source for political topics, per WP:HUFFPOLITICS, but the rest seem more or less fine.

Grayfell (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

AP News also has this story EvergreenFir (talk) 04:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

This has pretty broad coverage. Looks sufficient to include a something along the lines of "In September 2024, the Department of Justice alleged that Russia was funding Tennessee-based media company Tenet Media, and used it for an influence operation. Pool was among the influencers paid by the company. He stated that he was unaware who was financing Tenet Media." Cortador (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

This seems like quite a stretch at this point. I mean it's clear there is an accusation that suggest Pool et al. However, there is nothing substantial at this time and as a BLP we shouldn't be including vague accusations without substance. I suggest leaving this out for the time since it appears to be the media, not the official statements that link this to Pool (and others). Springee (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Nothing about this is a "stretch". There is ample substance, which is provided by a multiple reliable, independent sources. Further, nothing about this is remotely surprising to anyone familiar with Pool's brand of content, and this incident will help provide useful context to readers. Grayfell (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

First, it sounds like Pool isn't named but the media is appreciating he is one of the unnamed sources. If he is unnamed then we should be careful about repeating the claim as this is a BLP. It doesn't appear that he was knowingly participating nor that he was adjusting his messaging as a result of this. In the end he isn't being accused of anything and since this is a BLP we should wait on including such content until it's clear there is a connection (it Pool's company is named) etc. is it surprising that the Russians would like to amplify a vice that says the US shouldn't give as much aid to Ukraine? No. But that doesn't allow us to ignore the do no harm aspect of BLP. Springee (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Instead of saying "this should be mentioned," you should say what you want put into the article. TFD (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Have to agree with most here as well, more than plenty reliable references and well sourced with direct ties to Pool. This is not a grey area but direct connection to him. ContentEditman (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

First, do not add this to the article lead as this is currently an accusation (not proven) and the actual indictment neither names Pool or the company who was funding various commentators. So far it's the media who is connecting the dots and there is no evidence that Pool (or the others) had any awareness where the funding was coming from given the indirect nature of the funding. As for adding to the article body we also have issues of RECENT and NOTNEWS. This is the sort of content that should be held out until we have a long term picture of what it amounts to. Springee (talk) 11:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

You're the only one trying to remove without consensus. All the other editors agree there is broad coverage and plenty of references to support this. ContentEditman (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Where is the consensus to add this content to the lead of a BLP? So far the only consensus is to add it to the body and no one is weighing the BLP issues even there. Since it was added without context (no names given in the indictment), the indictment doesn't say those who received money from the Tenet company had any what the source was. What was added to the lead can imply Pool is knowingly taking money for and changing his commentary to spread a message from the Russian government. That is absolutely a BLP violation. Springee (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

That's not how WP:BLPRESTORE works. The content being shoved into the lead is WP:OR and given the extraordinary nature of the claim I agree there is no consensus for inclusion. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Wrong. No consensus has been reached. Kcmastrpc is correct: this is an extraordinary claim of original research. Cortador's suggested sentence (see above) would be better as it can be well-sourced. Vague accusations of "meddling with the 2024 presidential election" are, however, not. We have more than enough sources which connect him (witting or not) to a disinformation scheme. Regardless of how much you or I understand him to be a right-wing grifter and meddling-peddling asset. But we need not resort to original research to directly accuse him of the election interference sought by Kostiantyn Kalashnikov and Elena Afanasyeva (the RT agents who violated FARA). That is original research, and directly contradicted by the indictment itself. Οἶδα (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Pool's editorial replying to the Jan 6th committee

The article has had a response from Pool to claims made by the Jan 6th committee added by Eric Carpenter in July 2022[4]. It was recently removed with a claim that Newsweek was no longer a RS. I'm not sure that is a reasonable justification to remove something that shows he did the article. That said, because the article is Pool defending himself from what he says are mischaracterizations by the Jan 6th committee I see no reason why this long term content should be removed. I did move it to the Jan 6th section which seems more appropriate rather than as evidence of independent work. Either way, I don't see why it was removed and should be restored either in it's original location or with other Jan 6th material. Springee (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Newsweeks is not a reliable source, and since Pool makes a claim about a third party - the committee - there is not ABOUTSELF exception to be had here. Cortador (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

What are we trying to prove here? If the objective is to show he had an oped in a mainstream news source then also self wouldn't apply. However, since the Jan 6th Committee mentioned him and the committee isn't an individual his reply certainly is allowed per about self. Springee (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

ABOUTSELF refers to third parties, not individuals. Cortador (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Please review ABOUTSELF. Pool is the author of the OpEd. He is allowed to say things about himself. It's "about himself" to say that someone presented about him was inaccurate or misrepresents him. ABOUTSELF is specifically for cases where the source is saying something about themselves. Springee (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Pool makes a statement about a third party. Hence, this is unsuitable for inclusion. Cortador (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Ms X says Senator Y harassed her. Y says X is lying. Since Y is defending himself the defense is specifically allowed as it's in direct reply to the accusation. Again, this is a common about self use. If you don't agree we can take it to BLPN for further discussion. Springee (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to do so. It on you to demonstrate that there is consensus for inclusion. Cortador (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF is ambiguous with regards to Grammatical person, but I don't really think there's a valid argument for omitting WP:NEWSWEEK as a reliable source per my comment below. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

per WP:NEWSWEEK, Its current relationship with IBT Media is unclear, and Newsweek's quality has not returned to its status prior to the 2013 purchase. Many editors have noted that there are several exceptions to this standard, so consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis. It seems that this content is not controversial, it's reporting that Pool made statements in response to what he claims are mischaracterization. I see no problem with using this as a reliable source in this context and with attribution (which doesn't seem to be an issue either). Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• I think it should be added back. If we are going to say in the article: On July 12, 2022, the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack included clips of a 2020 video from Pool as part of a montage of videos showing support for Trump's announced rally on January 6. And then Pool writes an op-ed in relation to this specific event, then of course there are going to be statements about a third party, how the hell else is he going to make a rebuttal to this specific event if he doesn't mention the United States House Select Committee. WP:PUBLICFIGURE says if the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too. And WP:NEWSWEEK says consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis. This is not original reporting by Newsweek, the piece is clearly identified as "opinion", and Pool's opinion in relation to this event was clearly attributed to him in the content that was removed, so it should be restored. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  The current source for the clips is a YouTube video i.e. a primary source. That makes the inclusion dubious already, as content that isn't reported on by RS shouldn't be included. Then stating that because if that, the Newsweek piece is needed is trying to reverse-eingineer that back into the article. Cortador (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't look at the source for the J6 statement already in the article, and I'm assuming you didn't know it was YouTube either. So my reply was not based on knowing the J6 statement was sourced to YouTube, and there was no reverse-engineering involved. My comment was in regards to the argument you were making that if someone, or in this case, a committee, includes material like video clips about an individual in a well publicized hearing, and then that individual responds with a rebuttal, it can't be included because they mentioned the committee. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any other policy based objections, that haven't been addressed, to the content so I've added it back. If editors see fit to remove it again they should also remove the entire prose about the USHSC suggesting Pool supported the J6 rally for being UNDUE. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

WEIGHT may apply. If you cannot find a reliable secondary source that mentions this, it lacks weight for inclusion. TFD (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m inclined to agree here as well since the reference used to make the initial claim is a YT video of the congressional hearing itself which isn’t necessarily unreliable but it could be considered primary and UNDUE. It seems we have a couple of primary sources taking jabs at one another and I wouldn’t be opposed to both being removed entirely. Kcmastrpc (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Springee any thoughts on just yeeting both the congressional accusations and Pools response entirely? It seems like this is probably just mudslinging that, from what I can tell, didn't get any major media coverage. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with removing all of it. Springee (talk) 12:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Should the lead mention that Pool has supported Russian disinformation?

It seems significant that Pool has received money in exchange for his support of a Russian disinformation campaign -- perhaps there should be some mention of this in the lead? Thanks. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

AG Garland said that Pool was not aware of the scheme. Pool says he writes his own content. Being part of a company where the head allegedly breaks the law does not beget adding "support of a Russian disinformation campaign" to Pool's article lead. Maybe it should be left in its separate section, unless and until it turns out he either a) was aware, or b) took prewritten scripts from the conspirators. 67.81.245.153 (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if I sound aggressive in my message, was not my intent. 67.81.245.153 (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

We can't say what level of suspicion/certainty he had, given the amount of money offered and the requests, but we do know of one request made to him by Elena Afanasyeva from the DOJ indictment. It says that Afanasyeva wanted to link the Crocus City Hall terror attack to Ukraine and the United States, despite the Islamic State claiming responsibility, and shows texts by Tim Pool accepting the task. Around those dates Tim released the video accusing Ukraine of directly or indirectly (financing ISIS) carrying out the terrorist attack. In my book that's enough to say that at very least he has supported Russian disinfo. Nmaxcom (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

While your account is very old, with 49 edits at this time I think you should review wp:or as it applies to what you have proposed. OR is not an acceptable foundation for article content and certainly not BLP content in the lead. Springee (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I removed the content that was in the article [5]. I think there needs to be a more direct connection made with the article subject by the sources. Most of them mentioned Pool as having been associated with the unnamed company, which doesn't seem sufficient for inclusion for criminal allegations. – notwally (talk) 05:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

And I reverted you. The paragraph is well sourced and DUE EvergreenFir (talk) 06:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, there are four sources cited, and only two of them mention any direct connection to Pool, and it is not a strong one:

• CBS: "Pool appears to be one of the commentators" [6]
• NBC: "Details included in the indictment match those of two of Tenet's personalities: Rubin and Pool... A person with over 1.3 million YouTube subscribers is referred to as 'Commentator-2.' Pool now has 1.37 million subscribers." [7]

I am not sure that is a strong enough connnection for allegations of criminal conduct. Pool being mentioned as affiliated with the website definitely is not adequate on its own. – notwally (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I was initially opposed to any inclusion but at this point I think enough coverage has come out that some mention is DUE. Should it be it's own section? Probably not so long as no sources are accusing Pool of knowingly participating. Trimming the section is probably in order, removal isn't unless history shows this to be a nothing going forward but that can be decided a year or two out. Springee (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm with Springee at this point, something is due at this point and more might be due at a later time but for now we should keep it brief. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree it should be mentioned, but we should just report the facts rather than speculate beyond what is known. TFD (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

It should be included. This has received sufficient coverage at this point, more than a number of other activities Pool has been involved in. Cortador (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Cortador, why did you restore this congested addition? [8] Sure, it's not a straight restoration but you failed to address the issue that this content was mentioned earlier in the article and that placement there is coatrack-ish. Remember that disputed content needs to go to the talk page to get consensus before restoring per BRD. Please self revert and discuss here. Springee (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

It's well sourced and tied directly to that topic. The addition, with references, is added correctly and supported. ContentEditman (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Putting "oh by the way" type comments into an article is not encyclopedic, it's yellow journalism. Springee (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

If you believe the NYT, CNN, and MSNBC - all of which are considered to be generally reliable - are in fact tabloids, you are free to make a case for that on the reliable sources noticeboard. Cortador (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

No, what we have in the wiki article is similar to yellow journalism. Those sources, which do have bias, only include that as a detail. We aren't at the detail level, we are meant to summarize. This isn't a summary fact. It also isn't one where the association clearly falls out of the facts nor one that an overwhelming number of sources make. Instead, those sources made an editorial association, one that may not be widely shared. It is also not an association in the facts from the DOJ. Keep in mind there is a consensus to include but not to embellish as you are trying to do. The content is contentious thus we need consensus (not edit warring) to include. Springee (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

What we have in the article is lifted directly from sources that Wikipedia considers to be reliable. You are free to challenge their reliability on reliable sources noticeboard. Cortador (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:V not all things that appear in a RS are DUE (or BALASP) in a Wikipedia article. The ONUS is on you to establish that this supports NPOV. Springee (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The addition already has sufficient support. If you want to remove it based on being "yellow journalism", you are free to seek support for that. The onus is on you to do that. Cortador (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

You are confusing WP:V with BALASP/DUE. ONUS is on you as the editor who is trying to add the content. Please review these policies and guidelines. You are trying to emphasize an association beyond what your sources support. Remember, this is meant to be a summary and already there is concern that this is being over emphasized. While the indictments have clearly been given a lot of emphasis, you shouldn't confuse reciprocity of weight. Pool, as one of the targets of the funding, is important to that story but it's not as clear this story is important to Pool. The stories you are finding are about the indicted conspiracy, vs about the people who were unknowingly funded by it. It's not clear how much long term impact this will have on Pool or how much Pool really is part of the story. Using this to emphasize "sound bite" without context of the original statements is yellow journalism and not something we should do in an encyclopedia. Springee (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems that @Cortador often conflates ONUS with V; which is weird. Anyway, coverage about Pools' involvement rapidly dropped off after the initial flurry of coverage almost two weeks ago. Additionally, it's difficult for me to find any substantive coverage about his involvement or the impact it's had in his personal life. Until such a time that there are material consequences for Pool (and RS cover it), we should omit this entirely from his BLP (and obviously, this means no mention in the lead). Pool isn't under indictment or even being investigated (that reliable sources have reported about) at this time. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems you have not been paying attention then. Its still talked/reported on and they lost support from some including having youtube pull some of their channels. . Just because you're ignoring it does not mean its not true. There is plenty of wide coverage of this as well refinanced. ContentEditman (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The move is reasonable. This is new content and there is only a consensus that something should be included, not that it should be a stand alone topic. Please do not edit war. Springee (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the sources Cortador provided, all put the statements deep in their articles. They also presented them as Pool's feelings on Ukraine and none claim Pool said that because of this sponsorship. This is consensus to include material. That is the speculative sort of claim/association that should be left out of an encyclopedia. Springee (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• The lead should mention this. The lead should summarize the body, and this has its own section there, so it should be summarized in the lead, as well. In the past I've mentioned that relatively few reliable sources discuss Pool compared to his level of popularity. This is no longer true, because many sources, including reliable, non-gossip sources, are discussing this. This incident's absence from the lead is conspicuous. Grayfell (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  There is only consensus for inclusion, not even it's own section. Springee (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  At this point, it's just speculation. It may develop into something or it may not. We have to wait and see. TFD (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  I agree, it is allegations based on affiliation and speculation. For what it's worth, I don't think a single paragraph should have its own section, and I think the current paragraph is overly detailed for the allegations currently being made. While it might be an entirely different situation as the story develops, for now I do not think it is appropriate in the lead. – notwally (talk) 03:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Source removal from the lead

This edit removed a high-quality academic source from the lead because an editor felt it was inappropriate for that source, in turn, to cite the Daily Beast. That isn't how WP:RS works; a peer-reviewed academic paper is allowed to (and often will) cite sources we would consider unreliable. In fact, part of the purpose of an WP:RS is to evaluate and report on things that we wouldn't cite directly - the idea is that their editorial controls and fact-checking (and, in this case, the peer-review process) allows them to perform research and determine the truth. --Aquillion (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Taking a look at WP:SCHOLARSHIP and specifically, POV and peer review in journals suggests we should be really careful about citations that attribute POV, and I'd say that given the label you're trying to reinforce is sourced from the Daily Beast should give pause to anyone familiar with their publication since we understand that it's particularly low quality and I would argue shouldn't be used to support a lead. Interested in hearing from other editors though, and any policy you can cite to support your claims that journals that use low quality sources is appropriate. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

No, you have misread that part of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. It says that care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view; there is no indication that the Journal of Quantitative Description exists to promote a POV. It has nothing to do with citations that attribute POV. The relevant explanation for how we determine reliable sources is in WP:RS, in WP:SECONDARY, and, indeed, in SCHOLARSHIP itself; peer-reviewed sources are generally considered reliable for reporting on and summarizing facts determined from primary sources, even ones we would not report directly. What matters is the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy of the proximate source, not how you feel about its own sources - for that, you could write to the Journal of Quantitative Description requesting a retraction, but unless they do retract it we assume that by putting their reputation behind a source they are confirming the conclusions that it reaches from those sources, regardless of how you personally feel about those sources. Nothing in that policy allows you to second-guess an otherwise-reliable source by declaring, yourself that you feel that their own sources are low-quality. (Also, I mean, FWIW the Daily Beast is yellow on WP:RSP; it's not an unthinkably terrible source the way you're describing it - but, again, that doesn't matter. Part of the purpose of a high-quality WP:SECONDARY RS is that they can perform research by investigating and performing their own fact-checking on dubious primary sources.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not able to find discussion on Journal of Quantitative Description on RSN, so I'm assuming it's a relatively new journal. I realize that lack of discussion is a form of silent consensus that it's considered generally reliable, and if it's worth bringing up it's probably something that should happen at RS/N and not here. I'm still interested in the opinion of other editors whether or not sourcing this is appropriate. I'd also point towards Citations Count, this paper is relatively new and I'm guessing it's not been cited by other academic works. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Opinionated claims in academic work is sadly common. If the source explains why this is true then inclusion makes sense. However, if the scholarship is just quoting a strongly biased second tier media source I don't see how that makes the claim any more legitimate than the original source. Beyond that, this is an additional citation to support a claim that is already in the article. Why add it? Springee (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The source should be restored. Removing a source because it cites another source is original research. Cortador (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Why do you think that is OR? Springee (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Analysis is sources that comes to a conclusion that the source doesn't support is original research. In this case, stating that a claim isn't supported because the source uses another source. Cortador (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I can see this side of the argument as well. @Cortador I'd be interested in reading any discussions that have come up on a noticeboard in relation to journals citing sources that Wikipedia deemed unreliable -- surely this isn't the first time it's come up (otoh, it's not your responsibility to find them, so feel free to tell me to go do the research myself). Cheers! Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

There's no requirement for sources to adhere to Wikipedia's article sourcing policy. Also, TDB isn't classed as unreliable, it is classed as a source with no consensus on reliability. Cortador (talk) 07:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and if anyone was suggesting we add text to the article saying "the claim isn't supported because the source uses another source", they'd be engaging in inappropriate OR. What's actually happening is reasonable discussion about the reliability of a specific use of a specific source. This is very appropriate, and it's supported specifically by WP:OR's intro: "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Right wing?

I'm assuming he is labeled right-wing because he doesn't agree with leftist ideals? 2603:8080:B102:489A:24B4:F3DB:9AC5:8677 (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

You'd have to ask the folks who wrote the cited sources, Wikipedia just follows along with what they say. MrOllie (talk) 04:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

BLPCAT related to conspiracy theorist

A few editors have added a CAT tag for conspiracy theorist. Please follow BRD and make your case for inclusion here. Springee (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

As the article stands, inclusion of that cat is an obvious no. If we're not saying in wikivoice in the body of the article that Pool is a conspiracy theorist, we shouldn't even be talking about the category. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

There's sources stating that Pool is a conspiracy theorist. I don't think that is a particularly controversial issue; the article also states and has stated for a while that Pool had been described as a "spreader of a conspiracy theory about the murder of Seth Rich" and that he has been covering conspiracy theories. Cortador (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a significant difference between someone who uses their platform to commentate on conspiracy theories vs individuals who use their platform to create them. Pool falls into the former category, unless of course you can find sources to support the latter. Until then, the category would be UNDUE. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

There's sources for the latter e.g. 1 or 2.

There's also no need for conspiracy theorists to create the conspiracies they promote e.g. Alex Jones is called a conspiracy theorist both for conspiracies he created (like the school shooting one) and ones that he didn't create (e.g. Pizzagate or various COVID conspiracy theories). Cortador (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kcmastrpc The edit you removed DID attribute the claim to the SPLC. It also stated that this was "alongside a number of news outlets", which are cited. If you want to remove content on the basis that it is not attributed, that actually needs to be the case. SPLC is also considered to be generally reliable regarding hate groups/extremism in the US. Cortador (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be pedantic, but it's not clear to me which conspiracy theories Pool has been responsible for which fall into the category of "hate groups/extremism." Nevertheless, even if we include SPLCs attributed opinion on Pool I don't feel it's enough to support the inclusion of the disputed category. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

That is not the criticism you made. You claimed that the claim wasn't attributed, which it was, and only backed by SPLC, which it wasn't.

That aside, to support the claim that pool is a conspiracy theorist, sources need to support that. There's so specific detail threshold for that. Cortador (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Since when does someone need to be involved in creating the conspiracy theory to be a conspiracy theorist? I can't actually think of a conspiracy theorist to which that applies (the creation is always vague and at least partially unattributed), can you? Even the authors of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion weren't conspiracy theorists by your standard... Just conspiracy compilers, publishers, and promoters. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Since we don't know exactly who wrote that manuscript we can't really say one way or another, can we? Unironically the one author who can be attributed to it isn't even labelled a conspiracy theorist in Wikivoice -- not that it really matters. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you going to address the actual issue I raised or just comment on the addendum? All the mainstream definitions of conspiracy theorist appear broader, for example MW "a person who proposes or believes in a conspiracy theory"[9] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

That definition seems reasonable, however, it's still unclear to me what conspiracy theories Pool is espoused to believe and by extension why we should say in wikivoice that he is a conspiracy theorist (via inclusion of the disputed category). I would be more inclined to support such inclusion if sources articulate how Pool is responsible for proposing a conspiracy theory, as that has much more substance and weight than mere acknowledgment or belief in a conspiracy theory. Neither of the sources mentioned above really explore the substance of the claim, in either case, they just label him as a conspiracy theorist which makes inclusion entirely undue for the this BLP. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Why would they need to do more than label him as a conspiracy theorist? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:ECREE Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Why would it be an extrodinary claim? It appears in keeping with the subject's general character and activities unless I'm missing something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

If you believe that the claim is exceptional, you will need to demonstrate that. Cortador (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

MOS:LABEL, specifically, Denialist insomuch that it’s a synonym for Conspiracy theorist, the label itself is prima facie controversial, hence rises to the need for exceptional sourcing. Also, WP:ONUS. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Has anyone but you here used the term "denialist"? Also, if you think that a claim is an exceptional one, you need to show that. The onus is on you to do that. Cortador (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It's really not, but you can keep telling yourself that all you want. I've already demonstrated how labeling Pool as a conspiracy theorist requires exception sourcing, the onus is on you to bring better sourcing or at a minimum consensus to include the material. You might want to try one of the noticeboards next. Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

No, you haven't. You just stated that this is supposedly an exceptional claim, and left it at that. You also claimed that the label is "denialist", a term nobody but you used. Why are you expecting others to back up something only you claim? Cortador (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you missed the point where I alluded to the term conspiracy theorist being analogous to denialist. The same principle applies here. How is Pool a conspiracy theorist? How does the article actually support this claim? Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

There are RS that state so, which is what is needed to support the claim. Cortador (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, what is the point of "alluding" to a denialist being the same as a conspiracy theorist? You have neither demonstrated that, nor shown what the comparison is supposed to achieve. Cortador (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

MOS:LABEL tells us that asserting someone is a <insert vague term> without expanding on it isn't appropriate (notice the .. after controversial). You can swap out any of those broad nouns there. You're missing the entire point of the argument, your argument is weak and you've completely dismissed the fact that it's not good enough for sources to label Pool a conspiracy theorist for it to be considered due, there has to be more coverage about what Pool has theorized about (per MOS:LABEL) and the article must cover what those conspiracy theories are (see MTG example below). Kcmastrpc (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Please clarify: have you abandoned the argument that this is in exceptional claim and that Pool is a "denialist", which you arguen is the same as a conspiracy theorist, and now argue exclusively that this constitutes labelling, or do you still argue all three? You keep jumping between arguments. Cortador (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cortador If you don’t see how the term conspiracy theorist falls under the guideline in MOS:LABEL as a neologism I’m not really sure what the point of continuing this discourse is.

I’ll reiterate one more time: it’s not good enough that sources merely call Pool a “conspiracy theorist”, multiple high quality sources must expand on how Pool’s coverage of specific topics make him one.

There are a couple of examples cited below, but I would argue those are relatively old, have little weight, and aren’t established enough to meet the high bar set by MOS:LABEL. Kcmastrpc (talk) 06:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I ask you once more to clarify what you are currently arguing: that this is an exceptional claim, that Pool is a "denialist" which is a label, that "denialist" is the same as a conspiracy theorist, that conspiracy theorist is neologism, or that the sources are too old?

You keep making arguments here and as soon as you get challenged in them, you abandon them in favour of new arguments. Cortador (talk) 08:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The question was about your invocation of WP:ECREE, you can't then just pivot to MOS:LABEL like nothing happened. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

MOS:LABEL -> Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy and that the term is not used to grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight. -> WP:ECREE -> See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories. I don't see any sources that go beyond using just the vague label conspiracy theorist. There are hundreds of articles on Pool, and unless we have a sufficient number of quality sources explaining why and how Pool is a conspiracy theorist, it's relegated to the unfortunate classification of fringe theories.

For example, let's take a look at Marjorie Taylor Greene, not only do sources overwhelmingly refer to her as a conspiracy theorist, there are numerous articles dissecting some of the crazy shit she's said and there is coverage in her BLP about the theories she's perpetuated or created. I suggest the editors wanting to include this material consider soliciting additional opinions on the matter, or just be the change you want to see in the world and test the theory that without additional prose or sourcing that your change won't be reverted as a BLP violation. Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be becoming a Gish gallop, you just keep adding more and more semi-accurate and innacurate arguments rather than addressing the issues raised with what you've already said. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

We've got plenty of time, so I don't see how that applies. Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't surprise me, it would be awfully inconvenient for you to see that it did. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

If you exclude sourced information on someone being a conspiracy theorist on the basis that in your personal opinion, they need to be the creator of the respective conspiracy, you are coming to a conclusion the source did not come to i.e. conducting original research. Cortador (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you have been previously told that OR only applies to the material in the article (see the 23 Sept discussion above). It does not apply to arguments for keeping martial out of an article. Springee (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

If you replace ""conducting original research" with "an argument not based on policy and/or guideline" the argument stands. It seems needlessly pedantic to point out a minor error when their core point is true. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

We frequently argue that a source is wrong or making an illogical or unsuported claim. That goes to weight which is a policy based argument. Springee (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, what part of WP:WEIGHT? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

How would the claim be "unsupported"? If it comes from the source, that is support. Cortador (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

As we all know, it's so unsupported that Tim Pool is a conspiracy nut. Not based in reality at all, nope. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

You are free to be wrong a second time. Cortador (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I think your indent is off as this indicates you are replying to yourself. Springee (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any arguments to contribute to the discussion? Cortador (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

When I have more time. You do understand that OR only applies to material in the article right? That was explained on 23 Sept (see section above). Springee (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Since you keep citing that, I suggest you reread it yourself. Cortador (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

As Firefangledfeathers noted on 23 Sept, OR opens with, "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." Springee (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't even cite the policy, but feel free to go on about this. Cortador (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion about relevant sources

• There is a lot of discussion here, but it would be helpful to provide the sources that describe the article subject as a "conspiracy theorist" and then have a discussion about whether they are adequate under policies such as MOS:LABEL. – notwally (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  I took a look at them and its NBC news, New republic, and BBC. I also serached google and several others also lay the same claim. Seems there is a lot of reliable, and verifiable, references backing it up. This should not be a hard addition. ContentEditman (talk) 01:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  It would be helpful if you could provide those other sources as well. Contentious labels are supposed to be "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". Three sources may be adequate, especially high quality ones, but that may also depend on how much coverage the article subject receives. I think consensus for inclusion of the disputed category would be easiest to achieve if as many sources as possible are provided. – notwally (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be included? So many reliable sources describe him as such. Are you trying to whitewash his article? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

LilianaUwU, if there are "so many" sources, then it should be easy to provide them here so that a consensus can be formed, as required by policy when the inclusion of contentious information is challenged. Also, I would suggest you strike your "whitewash" accusation and refrain from personal attacks. – notwally (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Those sources are already in the article, mainly in the lenghty Career section. And you won't make me strike a simple question. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Other than the three sources already noted by ContentEditman above, I do not see any other relevant sources in the career section. I do not believe three sources is the same as "so many". If you are not interested in actually contributing to a productive discussion, I'm not sure why you are commenting here. – notwally (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

SPLC and the Boston Globe also call Pool a conspiracy theorist.

Not that this isn't just about the conspiracy theorist category, but also about a part of the career section that got removed (see here). Cortador (talk) 05:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, to put the BLPCAT in the article we would need more than just a few sources calling him a conspiracy theorist. It would have to be perhaps a plurality of sources making that claim. Springee (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

There are already 5 sources just on this talk page along stating as such. That is a lot more than a few, more than required for adding something of this nature not only category but also adding to career section. ContentEditman (talk) 11:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I see two above and one is SPLC which is an activist group and should be viewed as opinion vs reporting. The Boston Globe is rather left leaning and while the reporter does use the label that certainly is far from sufficient to use it for a BLPCAT. Further up we have NBC which doesn't call Pool a CT so that one is out. The New Republic is a biased source. The BBC doesn't call Pool a CT ("The podcaster Tim Pool, a former Occupy Wall Street supporter and Vice News reporter, "). The problem with a number of the source provided is they either don't say what people claim or they aren't sufficient to support a BLPCAT label. BLP should not be written in a way that suggests we are trying to denigrate the article subject. We can show (and we do) but we shouldn't tell. That many not be good writing 101 but it's not far from it. Springee (talk) 12:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources don't need your personal approval. You need to make a better case than just "It's biased", and/or demonstrate that there is consenus to consider the source as such. Cortador (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

This is not about personal approval. We need multiple reliable, non-opinion sources that explicitly call Pool a conspiracy theorist. The Globe article is an opinion piece. SPLC's and TNR's views should be presented with attribution. If we want to present this view with attribution, as has been done already, the bar is lower, but we should still insist on sources that use "conspiracy theorist" explicitly. Synonymous language like "frequent promoter of conspiracy theories" would be fine, but linking him to one conspiracy theory is not enough. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

There are reference already on his page that said "Tim Pool, a YouTube conspiracy theorist". Its also not our job to "link" him to anything, we go by what the references say and many of them have been posted to his page and new ones on the talk page now. ContentEditman (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I meant that it's not enough for a source to link Pool to one conspiracy theory, if we mean to use that source to support "conspiracy theorist" as a wikivoice descriptor. The NBC News piece is an example. I agree it's not our job to do any linking. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It is enough for the source to say that he believes in, creates, or disseminates conspiracy theories (or just one conspiracy theory), we don't actually need them to literally call him a conspiracy theorist at all. Something like the BBC saying "There's no evidence that Garcia was inspired to action by Mr Pool's podcasts, which cover right-wing talking points and conspiracy theories."[10] is enough Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

So is it Tim Pool or his podcasts that cover right-wing talking points? Because BBC clearly states Mr Pool's podcasts, and we're on Pool's BLP, not an article about his media organization. Additionally, MOS:LABEL policy sets the bar higher than sources merely labeling someone a conspiracy theorist, there has to be substance to the claim. Just swap out the word controversial with conspiracy theorist (per additional guidance on -ist/-ism terms): Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term conspiracy theorist, instead give readers information about relevant conspiracy theories. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of the conspiracy theory and that the term is not used to grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

it doesn't appear to be a seperate topic (The BBC doesn't treat it as one "Tim Pool, pictured in this photo from 2012, spread false rumours about the suspect's social media accounts") and the MOS isn't meant to be used like that, if you're appling it rigidly you're violating the MOS "The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Which is then followed up with, "If a word can be replaced by one with less potential for misunderstanding, it should be." Which is exactly what I did. I fail see why MOS:LABEL isn't applicable here.

I'm going to invoke WP:CIR now and walk away. There are no shortages of actual conspiracy theorists who have dozens (if not hundreds) of sources to back up the claim, and not just polemic hand-wavy attack articles, actual in-depth coverage on how and why said individual is a conspirator conspiracy theorist. The few low quality sources that have been presented just don't meet that bar, and until that changes I don't think my opinion on it will either. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry this has been a long discussion but I don't remember that, what was the word you suggested we use instead? Conspirator is also definitely not what you meant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I struck the conspirator usage, as it definitely carries a different connotation. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

And what was the word you suggested we use instead? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

When did NBC news, New Republic, BBC, etc... become "low quality sources". Maybe I missed that? ContentEditman (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Are we still arguing about whether this article should be included in ?

"The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to pages in Wikipedia within a hierarchy of categories."

Currently there are 200 articles in the category and if we are to every article where someone is as vocal about conspiracy theories as Tim Pool, it will run into thousands or even tens of thousands of pages. Isn't a "right-wing political commentator" by definition a conspiracy theorist? It would be like having a category for U.S. Republicans, with which there would be considerable overlap.

If I were using the category to learn about U.S. conspiracy theorists, I would want to see prominent names, such as Alex Jones.

TFD (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Your issue would appear to be a general one about how we handle categories and subcategories, if you want to change how categories work this is not the place to do it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

"Isn't a "right-wing political commentator" by definition a conspiracy theorist?" - By what definition would that be the case? Where did you get that definition from? Cortador (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

No it's not about how we handle categories etc. but how the guideline instructs us to. Can you explain what in the guideline justifies inclusion of this article? What purpose do you think including this article will achieve?

Cortador, most right-wing commentators promote the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and the theory that critical race theory is being taught in schools. If you can find one that doesn't promote conspiracy theories, maybe we could set up a special category to help readers find them. TFD (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

What definition is that, and what is your source for it? Cortador (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

See "Trump and other Republicans conjure a familiar enemy in attacking Democrats as 'communists'".[11]

Is your view that the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is not a conspiracy theory or that most Republicans don't believe it?

Some wackier conspiracy theories, such as the stolen 2016 election, the deep state and anti-vaxxism are also pretty common. On the fringes we have Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene who holds committee appointments. TFD (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Where in that article is a right-wing political commentator defined as a conspiracy theorist? Cortador (talk) 05:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you name one right-wing political commentator who does not advocate conspiracy theories?

While we're at it, the articles names Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio as spreading conspiracy theories. Are you going to put them into the category. And while I have not presented any sources that Trump has promoted conspiracy theories, such as claiming that the 2020 election was stolen, I think that if you give me a couple of days, I might find a source for that too. If there are credible sources for this, will you add Trump too? TFD (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The topic Donald Trump appears to already be in the categories American conspiracy theorists and COVID-19 conspiracy theorists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

That makes the case a lot easier then. There's additional sources describing Pool as a right-wing commentator, so we can count those towards describing him as a conspiracy theorist too. Cortador (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

You still have not explained what benefit the categorization provides readers. Do you think that someone will look through a list of hundreds of American conspiracy theorists and choose to read this article and find they are more knowledgeable about the topic?

Why not just add Category:Conservatism in the United States to U.S. conspiracy theorists and then Tim Pool and his ilk will all be rolled up into it? Then readers can navigate the category and look for what type of conspiracy theorists they are interested in. TFD (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, please stop with the WP:FORUM. Start a blog if you want to make broad claims about other groups of people. This talk page is to discuss changes to this particular article based on reliable sources. – notwally (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks. My only concern is that we follow guidelines. Despite repeated requests by me, you have not explained how your proposal meets guidelines. My position is that adding potentially thousands of articles to the U.S. conspiracy theorist category will not help readers with navigation, which is the reason for categories. If I am wrong, please explain instead of questioning my motives. TFD (talk) 01:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

There isn't a personal attack in notwally's comment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, telling you to stop with the repeated off-topic comments about your own personal views labeling all Republicans as conspiracy theorists is not a personal attack in any way. Also, I have made no proposals in this discussion at all. I merely requested that sources be provided so that a discussion can be had based on them rather than the just personal opinions of editors here. I don't know what you are reading, but an honest discussion about the article content based on the provided sources is what should be going on here. – notwally (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I assume you are proposing that if adequate sources are found, that this article should be added to the U.S. conspiracy theories category. If not, why are you participating in this discussion? TFD (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The Four Deuces You can leave your assumptions to yourself. To repeat myself, an honest discussion about the article content based on the provided sources is what should be going on here. – notwally (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright, so we're just talking and you have no intention of supporting the category. TFD (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, my intention is to support what I think is most appropriate according to sources. Since that is how discussions and consensus are supposed to work. Give it a try sometime. Take care. – notwally (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

If you are against Wikipedia categories for people, feel free to make a case for that on WikiProject Categories. This is, as normally already pointed out, not the place for this. Cortador (talk) 04:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

TFD is correct in noting that the BLPCATs aren't for attaching to every example that even remotely might fit. They should only be used in cases where label is all but universally applied. That isn't the case here. Springee (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:LABEL says that contentious labels "are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". A standard of "all but unverisally applied" seems significantly higher than "widely used". – notwally (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

This argument would appear to go against existing policy, guideline, and practice... What are you seeing as the justification for "They should only be used in cases where label is all but universally applied."? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It stems from BLPCAT as well as LABEL. I would suggest raising the issue at BLPN if you think we are being too cautious with the application of this category. Springee (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Where does WP:BLPCAT discuss about a higher standard of "all but universally applied"? That policy links to WP:LABEL regarding contentious categories on biographies. – notwally (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Nowhere. This is a standard set by Springee to prevent addition of this to the article. Cortador (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a clear personal attack because it assumes bad faith and dishonesty by another editor. Not only does this type of statement make it more difficult to work together, but it diverts the discussion. I'm sure you wouldn't talk about one of your co-workers like that. TFD (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, why don't you just stick to discussing the article? – notwally (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Why are you discussing what I posted instead of discussing the article? TFD (talk) 01:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

"all but universally" is my way of emphasizing that when applying a contentious label in wiki voice to a BLP subject we need it to be something that sources would basically universally agree with even if they don't all use it. When you look at BLPN discussions related to contentious LABELs you will see that we have a very high standard for using a label. You might disagree if that standard is "all but universal" (is that 60% or just 40% with the others not disagreeing) but it's clearly more than a few sources say it. What we have here is a few sources of mixed quality making the claim. Springee (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

It may stem from it... Buts its not in either place, you've invented it and we don't need to take your invention anywhere... We can dismiss it out of hand. Even if we decide that its not due we can still dismiss your personal standard for doing so. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the Springee standard is a step beyond the bar in policy and guideline, but I think the current sourcing is too paltry to meet the explicit requirements of WP:NPOV which we'd need to make a wiki-voice claim that would support a category label. The article text is much more important than the category, which the vast majority of readers will never notice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Given the sources, I tend to agree with Firefangledfeathers. There appear to be about 4-5 high quality sources calling Pool a conspiracy theorist or saying that he spreads conspiracy theories, but is the term widely used enough when referring to Pool to state in Wiki-voice? I think there would have to be an argument that this coverage represents a significant amount of the mainstream coverage, but that is not the impression I get from a Google search. – notwally (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Since some of the issues raised here about labels and categories would the same for multiple articles, I suggest we discuss those issues at noticeboards. We need to clarify where conspiracy theorist is a label and the criteria for adding names to categories.

I suggest too that we wait until after the U.S. presidential election TFD (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

This was in the article was a claim attributed to SPLC. It's at minimum good for an attributed description. Cortador (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

References